Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Looking back at Donald Trump and his teams efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it might be tempting to think of Rudy Giuliani as some kind of hapless, buffoonish figure. It was two days after the race was called, for example, when the former New York City mayor held a head-shaking press conference in Philadelphia at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot, near a sex shop and a crematorium.

Soon after, Giuliani held a different outlandish press conference in which a strange dye ran down his face.

But as ridiculous as his political antics made him appear, Giuliani is not just some random clown in the former presidents orbit. On the contrary, for those investigating the post-election scandals and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, there are few figures more important than the Republican lawyer.

Before Election Day 2020, for example, it was Giuliani who partnered with an active Russian agent in the hopes of undermining the future American president. After Election Day 2020, Giuliani was not only a central figure in Trumps inner circle as Team Trump tried to overturn the results, and he not only spoke at the rally that preceded the riot, but the former New York City mayor also stands accused of helping coordinate the fake-electors scheme thats the subject of multiple ongoing investigations.

By some accounts, Giuliani was also directed by Trump to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it were legally possible to seize control of voting machines in key swing states.

With this in mind, it was of interest to see that Giuliani finally sat down with congressional investigators on Friday. NBC News reported:

Rudy Giuliani, one of the most prominent promoters of former President Donald Trumps lies about a stolen election, testified Friday before the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 riot, according to two sources familiar with the matter. One source told NBC News that the onetime Trump attorney met with the Democratic-controlled House committee for roughly nine hours, including breaks.

Though Giuliani was first subpoenaed in January, his testimony was not a foregone conclusion. Soon after being contacted by congressional investigators, the Republican insisted that the select committee was itself illegal and lacked the authority to subpoena anybody. (None of this reflected reality.)

Eventually, Giuliani switched gears and was scheduled to testify a few weeks ago, but he canceled at the last minute after a disagreement over recording the interview.

Then he switched gears again and testified on Friday under oath over the course of nine hours. A New York Times report noted that the Q&A was interrupted so that Giuliani could host his hourlong afternoon radio show.

As for what he actually said over the course of the many hours, we dont yet know. But given the duration of the proceedings, it seems unlikely that Giuliani simply asserted his Fifth Amendment rights over and over again.

Lets also not forget that the former mayor has drawn the scrutiny of federal law enforcement, and it was a year ago when investigators executed a search warrant at Giulianis home. At least in theory, if he were still facing a possible indictment, testifying under oath for several hours would be a highly risky move.

Watch this space.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Go here to read the rest:
Over 9 hours, Jan. 6 committee finally gets answers from Giuliani - MSNBC

Crime occurs everywhere, from the high rises of Manhattan to the mean streets of South Central LA.

There are of course differences in the number of crimes committed and the types of offenses that occur, depending on the area.

Understanding what issues are most common where you live is therefore useful, for several reasons.

Looking at crime rates and statistics in Santa Clarita is a good way to get a sense of these geographical differences, so lets do just that!

Both on a state and national level, the crime stats for Santa Clarita are significantly below the average, which is obviously great news for locals.

In 2020, the most recent year for which figures are available, the murder rate across the US was pegged at 6.5 per 100,000 people. In comparison, the 0.9 figure found in Santa Clarita is reassuring.

A similar pattern covers other forms of violent and non-violent crime. Santa Claritas burglary record of 161.8 per 100,000 people is around half the national average, and even further below the 369.7 seen in California itself.

Cases of assault are even less common, with Santa Clarita seeing 79.3 incidents of this kind for every 100,000 residents in 2020, while nationwide this sits at 279.7.

In short, it is among the safest places to live in the US, and while not completely crime-free, Santa Clarita is as close as can be to this idea.

The dichotomy of crime is that as well as being concerned about falling victim to all sorts of offenses, you might worry about facing an accusation yourself.

Wherever you live, having an experienced lawyer to represent you is crucial. Whether a criminal defense attorney in NJ or an equivalent in CA, choosing a reputable and reliable practitioner of the law will allow you to deal with the fallout of being accused of a crime.

Another important thing to note is that using your fifth amendment right to remain silent is crucial, whether you are innocent or not.

If you are arrested in Santa Clarita or anywhere else, keeping quiet until you have a chance to speak to your lawyer is the only way to avoid saying anything that could be incriminating, even accidentally.

Being a resident of Santa Clarita and knowing that its a statistically safe place to live and work can give you peace of mind. Of course this might also lead you to be complacent, which is not a helpful mental state to get into either.

Lets take vehicle theft as an example. In 2020, 288 reports of this crime were made in Santa Clarita, which is still a sizable figure even taking the citys population into account.

Leaving valuables on show in your car, or not having it properly locked and garaged overnight, should be avoided as a result.

General theft incidents were even more common, with in excess of 1,300 reports filed annually. Just because you are less likely to encounter this or any other issue in Santa Clarita, doesnt mean you can afford to let your guard down.

On the other side of the coin, if you are anxious about crime in Santa Clarita having read this far, all you need to do is be aware of the risks and to take adequate precautions.

As well as familiarizing yourself with a good local lawyer, you should consider installing security systems at your home, and of following best practices for staying safe when out and about.

Excerpt from:
How Does Crime In Santa Clarita Compare With The Rest Of The USA? - KHTS Radio

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

Amendments to and Restatements of PNMR Credit Agreements

On May 20, 2022, PNM Resources, Inc., a New Mexico corporation ("PNMR") enteredinto a $1.0 billion Amended and Restated Term Loan Agreement (the "PNMR Amendedand Restated Term Loan") amending and restating its $1.0 billion delayed-drawterm loan agreement among PNMR, the lenders party thereto and Wells Fargo Bank,National Association ("Wells Fargo"), as Administrative Agent. The PNMR Amendedand Restated Term Loan is effective as of May 20, 2022. The PNMR Amended andRestated Term Loan extends the maturity date to May 18, 2025 and includes otheradministrative updates. As of the date hereof, PNMR had $1.0 billion outstandingunder the PNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan.

PNMR must pay interest on its borrowing under the PNMR Amended and Restated TermLoan from time-to-time following funding and must repay all amounts on or beforethe maturity date.

The PNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan includes customary covenants, includinga covenant that requires the maintenance of a consolidated debt-to-consolidatedcapitalization ratio of less than or equal to 0.70 to 1.00. The PNMR Amended andRestated Term Loan also includes customary events of default, a cross defaultprovision, and a change of control provision. If an event of default occurs,Wells Fargo may declare the obligations outstanding under the PNMR Amended andRestated Term Loan to be due and payable. Such acceleration will occurautomatically in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy default.

As previously disclosed, on October 20, 2020, PNMR, Avangrid, Inc. ("Avangrid"),and NM Green Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avangrid ("MergerSub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into PNMR (the "Merger"), withPNMR surviving the Merger as a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Avangrid. ThePNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan provides that substantially concurrentlywith the consummation of the transactions set forth in the Merger Agreement,PNMR will assign to Avangrid all of its rights, duties, obligations andliabilities under the PNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan and Avangrid willassume from PNMR, as its direct and primary obligation, the payment andperformance of all of the duties, liabilities and obligations of PNMR under thePNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan pursuant to an amendment and restatement ofthe PNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan in the form of a second amended andrestated credit agreement attached to the PNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan.

The above description of the PNMR Amended and Restated Term Loan is not completeand is qualified in its entirety by reference to the entire PNMR Amended andRestated Term Loan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.1 and isincorporated herein by reference.

On May 20, 2022, PNMR entered into a Tenth Amendment to and Restatement ofCredit Agreement (the "PNMR Revolver") amending and restating its $300 millionrevolving credit agreement, among PNMR, the lenders party thereto (the "PNMRRevolver Lenders") and Wells Fargo, as Administrative Agent. The PNMR Revolveris effective as of May 20, 2022. The PNMR Revolver now has a maturity date ofOctober 31, 2024, unless the maturity date is extended at the request of PNMRand with the agreement of the PNMR Revolver Lenders, subject to certain termsand conditions, and reflects other administrative updates.

The PNMR Revolver provides PNMR with a revolving credit facility for borrowingup to $300 million and includes customary covenants, including a covenant thatrequires the maintenance of a consolidated debt-to-consolidated capitalizationratio of less than or equal to .70 to 1.0. The PNM Revolver also includescustomary events of default, and has a cross default provision and a change ofcontrol provision. If an event of default occurs, the administrative agent may,or upon the request and direction of lenders holding a specified percentage ofthe commitments or loans shall, terminate the obligations of the lenders to makeloans under the PNMR Revolver and/or declare the obligations outstanding underthe PNMR Revolver to be due and payable. Such termination and acceleration willoccur automatically in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy default.

The above description of the PNMR Revolver is not complete and is qualified inits entirety by reference to the entire PNMR Revolver, a copy of which isattached hereto as Exhibit 10.2 and is incorporated herein by reference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to and Restatements of PNM Credit Agreements

On May 20, 2022, Public Services Company of New Mexico ("PNM"), a wholly ownedsubsidiary of PNMR, entered into a Fifth Amendment to and Restatement of CreditAgreement (the "PNM Revolver") amending and restating its $400 million revolvingcredit agreement, among PNM, the lenders party thereto (the "PNM RevolverLenders") and Wells Fargo, as Administrative Agent. The PNM Revolver iseffective as of May 20, 2022. The PNM Revolver now has a maturity date ofOctober 31, 2024, unless the maturity date is extended at the request of PNM andwith the agreement of the PNM Revolver Lenders, subject to certain terms andconditions, and reflects other administrative updates.

The PNM Revolver provides PNM with a revolving credit facility for borrowing upto $400 million and includes customary covenants, including a covenant thatrequires the maintenance of a consolidated debt-to-consolidated capitalizationratio of less than or equal to .65 to 1.0. The PNM Revolver also includescustomary events of default, and has a cross default provision and a change ofcontrol provision. If an event of default occurs, the administrative agent may,or upon the request and direction of lenders holding a specified percentage ofthe commitments or loans shall, terminate the obligations of the lenders to makeloans under the PNM Revolver and/or declare the obligations outstanding underthe PNM Revolver to be due and payable. Such termination and acceleration willoccur automatically in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy default.

The above description of the PNM Revolver is not complete and is qualified inits entirety by reference to the entire PNM Revolver, a copy of which isattached hereto as Exhibit 10.3 and is incorporated herein by reference.

On May 20, 2022, PNM entered into the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the"PNM Local Revolver") amending and restating its $40 million revolving creditagreement, among PNM, the lenders party thereto, U.S. Bank National Association,as Administrative Agent, and BOKF, NA dba Bank of Albuquerque, as SyndicationAgent. The seven participating lenders are all banks that have a significantpresence in New Mexico or are headquartered in New Mexico. The PNM LocalRevolver is effective as of May 20, 2022. The PNM Local Revolver now terminateson May 20, 2026, or any earlier date on which the Aggregate Commitment, asdefined in the PNM Local Revolver, is reduced to zero or otherwise terminatedpursuant to the terms of the PNM Local Revolver, and reflects otheradministrative updates.

The PNM Local Revolver provides PNM with a revolving credit facility forborrowing up to $40 million and includes customary covenants, including acovenant that requires the maintenance of a consolidated debt-to-consolidatedcapitalization ratio of less than or equal to .65 to 1.0. The PNM Local Revolveralso includes customary events of default, and has a cross default provision anda change of control provision. If an event of default occurs, the administrativeagent may, or upon the request and direction of lenders holding a specifiedpercentage of the commitments or loans shall, terminate the obligations of thelenders to make loans under the PNM Local Revolver and/or declare theobligations outstanding under the PNM Local Revolver to be due and payable. Suchtermination and acceleration will occur automatically in the event of aninsolvency or bankruptcy default.

The above description of the PNM Local Revolver is not complete and is qualifiedin its entirety by reference to the entire PNM Local Revolver, a copy of whichis attached hereto as Exhibit 10.4 and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information required by this item is included in Item 1.01 and incorporatedherein by reference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original post:
PNM RESOURCES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

Former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr is in talks to cooperate with the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to an individual close to Barr.

Former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr is in talks to cooperate with the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to an individual close to Barr.

Committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson told Face the Nation in January that the select committee had conversations with the former attorney general already, and an individual close to the Barr confirmed the panel contacted him for what was described as an informal conversation to see whether he had information related to the Capitol attack or the actions of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.

When asked about a draft executive orderobtained by Politicothat was given to former President Donald Trump directing the Defense Department to seize voting machines after he lost the 2020 election, Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, said, weve had conversations with the former attorney general already. We have talked to Department of Defense individuals.

At that time, Barr said he did not have any visibility into the events of January or Clarkes work and did not feel he had much information that could be useful to the select committee. Barr resigned from his post as attorney general in December 2020 and ended his tenure at the department on December 23.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr is sworn in before testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on July 28, 2020 in Washington, DC.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Clark, a key figure in raising doubts about the integrity of the election with Trump, attempted to use Justice Department resources to delay certification of the 2020 election results, according to a report from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Clark was in contact with Mr. Trump in the days leading up to January 6, according to the Senate Judiciary committees report.

The select committee issued a subpoena for his testimony in October. The committee had moved to hold Clark in contempt late last year when he failed to appear but granted him a reprieve after he indicated he would appear for a deposition and invoke the Fifth Amendment.

While Barr was considered a defender of Trump while he led the Justice Department, their relationship soured in the wake of the 2020 presidential election after Barr told the Associated Press that federal investigators had not found evidence of widespread voter fraud, as Trump claimed.

A source familiar with the situation confirmed to CBS News in October that former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen sat for an interview with the committee. It lasted around 8 hours.

The committee is winding down its investigations ahead of planned public hearings, set to start on June 9. Thompson said earlier this week that he didnt expect the committee would call Trump as a witness.

Thompson said earlier this week the first hearing will more or less show what the committee has learned over the past year.

The House select committee was created last year by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to investigate the January 6 attack, when thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol as Congress counted the electoral votes, a largely ceremonial final step affirming Mr. Bidens victory. Lawmakers were sent fleeing amid the riot, which led to the deaths of five people and the arrests of hundreds more. Trump, who encouraged his supporters to walk down to the Capitol during the rally at the Ellipse before the electoral vote count, was impeached by the House one week later for inciting the riot but was later acquitted by the Senate.

The committee has issued dozens of subpoenas, including ones to Trumps allies, former White House officials, campaign aides and individuals involved in the planning of the rally outside the White House before the Capitol building came under siege. Two top Trump allies, Steve Bannon and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, have been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas, and the Justice Department has charged Bannon. Both said they are following instructions from Trump, who has claimed executive privilege.

Rebecca Kaplan, Zak Hudak and Ellis Kim contributed to this report.

More:
Trump Attorney General Bill Barr in talks to cooperate with Jan. 6 committee, source says - WTOP

Judy Huth met Bill Cosby when she was still a teenager, she has recounted in court papers. It was the mid-1970s, and Mr. Cosby had already had his breakthrough on the TV series I Spy and become a movie star, but was still years away from his huge success on The Cosby Show. Ms. Huth and a friend spotted him on a film set in a park in San Marino, Calif., and ended up meeting him in person, according to her court filings.

Days later, she asserts in the filings, she went to Mr. Cosbys tennis club at his invitation, where he gave her and her friend alcohol before taking them to the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, where she accuses him of forcing her to perform a sex act on him in a bedroom. Mr. Cosby has described her account as a fabrication since the case was first filed in 2014.

This week the job of deciding who is credible will fall to a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court, as the civil trial of Mr. Cosby on Ms. Huths accusations that he sexually assaulted her is scheduled to get underway.

Ms. Huths recollection regarding when the encounter occurred has changed. She initially said that it had happened in 1974, when she was 15. But more recently she concluded that it was actually in 1975, when she was 16, according to court papers. Since the beginning, she has said in court papers that she recalled Mr. Cosby telling her and her friend to claim they were both 19 if asked at the mansion.

The change of dates has led Mr. Cosbys team to further dispute her account. Andrew Wyatt, a spokesman for Mr. Cosby, said in a statement that Ms. Huth had made inconsistent statements since the inception of filing this civil suit against Mr. Cosby. Ms. Huth has said that recently released information supplied by Mr. Cosbys team had led her to reconsider what year it occurred.

The civil case, one of the last unsettled lawsuits against Mr. Cosby, was largely put on hold while prosecutors in Pennsylvania pursued the criminal case that resulted in his 2018 conviction on charges of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand. But the conviction was overturned, and Mr. Cosby was released from prison last year when an appellate panel found that his due process rights had been violated when prosecutors ignored an assurance from a prior district attorney that Mr. Cosby would not be prosecuted.

With the criminal case overturned, the significance of Ms. Huths suit has risen in the minds of some of the many women who have accused Mr. Cosby of being a sexual predator.

I think that Judys trial may be our last stand for justice and seeing accountability come to fruition in our stand against Bill Cosby, Victoria Valentino, who says Mr. Cosby drugged and raped her in Los Angeles in 1969, said in a text. (Mr. Cosby has denied all allegations of sexual assault, and said any encounters were consensual.) She said she plans to attend part of the trial, which, barring a last-minute settlement, is set to begin with jury selection this week and opening arguments expected June 1.

Patricia Steuer, who accused Mr. Cosby of drugging and assaulting her in 1978 and 1980, said that she saw the Huth civil trial as a chance to get a measure of justice. There is no other recourse at the moment, she said. It probably is the only avenue available.

Mr. Cosby, now 84, has already faced multiple other civil cases filed against him by women, many of whom sued him for defamation after his legal team dismissed as fictions their accusations of sexual misconduct by him. Eleven civil cases ended in settlements, with 10 of the settlements having been agreed to by Mr. Cosbys former insurance company over his objections, according to his spokesman.

Ms. Huths lawsuit is poised to become the first civil case accusing Mr. Cosby of sexual assault to reach trial. In court papers, Ms. Huth says that in a bedroom at the Playboy Mansion, Mr. Cosby tried to put his hand down her pants and then forced her to fondle him.

Ms. Huth filed her suit in December 2014, at a time when Mr. Cosby was facing allegations by many women who said he had drugged and sexually assaulted them, in incidents spanning several decades.

She also reported her accusation to the police, but the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office declined to file criminal charges because the statute of limitations had passed.

Her lawyers argued that the period for a civil claim had not expired, however, because in California it is extended for adults who say they were victims of sexual abuse as minors but repressed the experience. The deadline to file such a suit is determined in part by when the person, as an adult, becomes aware of the severe psychological effect of the abuse, her lawyers said.

In 2020, California law was amended to further extend the statute of limitations for sexual assault filings in civil court.

Ms. Huths revised timeline, which says Mr. Cosby assaulted her when she was 16 rather than 15, should not affect her ability to pursue the suit since the law views a 16-year-old as a minor, Ms. Huths lawyer, Gloria Allred, said.

Mr. Cosbys lawyers argued in legal papers that they felt ambushed by the sudden change in Ms. Huths account. They said that their research had been geared toward establishing Mr. Cosbys and Ms. Huths whereabouts in 1974, and said they had prepared evidence to show that the entertainer was not at the Playboy Mansion in the period she suggested in 1974.

Log books from the Playboy Mansion for 1974 do not list either Ms. Huth or her friend as having visited, according to Mr. Cosbys lawyers.

At a hearing last week, the judge asked Playboy to produce records for 1975 and agreed that Ms. Huth and the friend who accompanied her should sit for a further deposition before the trial begins.

Mr. Cosbys lawyers have also questioned whether she had only remembered the alleged abuse a short time before filing the suit because, they said, she had contacted a tabloid about it 10 years earlier.

Mr. Wyatt, the spokesman for Mr. Cosby, said in the statement, We feel confident that the Playboy records along with Ms. Huth changing her timeline of events from 1974 to 1975 in the 11th hour will vindicate Mr. Cosby.

Mr. Cosby acknowledged meeting with Ms. Huth at the Playboy Mansion, and Ms. Huth has produced photographs of them together that she said were taken there, according to court papers. But he has denied that she was a minor when they met.

While defendant does not deny that he socialized with plaintiff at the Playboy Mansion, as he did other women and men who frequented the club, his lawyers said in court papers, defendant vehemently denies that plaintiff was underage.

Ms. Huth has said that she changed the timeline of her account in part because she only recently realized, as a result of documents put forward by Mr. Cosby, that the filming of the movie Lets Do It Again, where she says they met, took place later than she had recalled.

The trial is expected to last two weeks, and Ms. Huth, who is seeking damages from Mr. Cosby, is expected to testify, along with the friend who accompanied her to the Playboy Mansion. Mr. Cosby has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and will not testify. He will not attend the trial, Mr. Wyatt said.

During pretrial hearings, Ms. Huth had asked for a bench trial, but the trial will be in front of a 12-person jury, with at least 9 of 12 votes needed for a verdict.

Mr. Cosby settled a civil case Ms. Constand brought against him in 2006 for $3.4 million. The other civil cases were settled for undisclosed terms by the insurance carried on Mr. Cosbys home policy, which provided personal injury coverage in a range of circumstances, including lawsuits that accused the policy holder of defamation.

The other ongoing civil case against Mr. Cosby was filed last year by Lili Bernard, an actor and visual artist, who accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her at a hotel in Atlantic City in 1990, when she was 26. She was able to file the suit, which is still in its early stages, because in 2019 New Jersey overhauled its laws on the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases, extending the time limit for filing suits and creating a special two-year window allowing people to bring cases regardless of how long ago the alleged assaults might have occurred.

View original post here:
Lawsuit Accusing Bill Cosby of Sexual Assault Heads to Trial - The New York Times

In the Dred Scott decision, Roger B. Taney, led the court in ruling that Black people could never be citizens of the United States and that slavery could not be banned in any state. The Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs, which will overturn Roe v Wade will have the same result.

Red states like Missouri already have plans that other red states will follow to sue doctors in other states that perform abortions on Missouri women. There is talk of charging women who go to another state for an abortion to face criminal charges when she returns to her home state. Such laws will in effect nationalize the ban on abortion, thus enslaving womens bodies throughout America.

Women should not count on a gang of religious zealots on the Supreme Court groomed by the Federalist Society to protect her rights under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution or under the Fifth Amendment when she goes to another state.

History rhymes in that black citizens, who sought such protections when traveling from state to state were denied them in the 19th Century. Current red state efforts will become Americas new de facto fugitive slave act, because red states will reach across borders to interfere with women getting an abortion.

Women activists are preparing for the end of Roe v Wade, and efforts are underway to create a new underground railroad that will help women get access to abortion where it is legal, and also to enable women to get necessary contraception and abortion pills as well. But these women will face the same risks of breaking the law that earlier railroaders faced.

The conservative war on women on will continue to not only deny pregnant women abortions, but to ban contraception as well. Women will become secondary citizens in America under patriarchal rule.

George Magakis, Jr., Norristown, Pa.

Continue reading here:
There will be a new version of the Underground Railroad to help women seeking abortions | PennLive letters - PennLive

Now that rent control has made it onto the ballot, I have a couple questions? Why arent gas stations being forced to lower prices? Gas is crazy high. Why arent grocery stores having to keep costs in check? Those prices are skyrocketing. I could go on, but you get the point.

Placing the burden of lowering rents on the shoulders of mom and pop landlords who are having just as difficult a time with inflation as anyone is a veiled taking of private property rights and a violation of the fifth amendment of the US Constitution. Oh, wait, violatingrights seems to be okay these days.

Ive lived in Pasadena for more than 50 years. During that time, I was both a renter and a landlord. Toward the end of my dads life, I was able to move him into a duplex I owned so I could better care for him. If this ordinance had been in place, that might not have been possible. Sorry mom and dad, youre on your own.

I understand renters are angry and hurting. But, blaming and burdening our struggling mom and pop landlords is not the solution.

Pasadena is not doing enough to create much needed affordable housing, but that is no reason to take rights away from individuals who have worked hard to achieve what the City cannot. There are approximately 3,000 mom and pop landlords in the City of Pasadena that are struggling with a worsening economy just like everyone else these individuals did not sign up to do the job that our elected officials willingly agreed to do, yet sadly, are not.

When money is taken from mom and pop landlords, they have less money to make needed repairs and the quality of rental properties goes down.

Thats a fact. But wait, according to the proposed rental ordinance, mom and pop landlords also get penalized for not making the repairs they can no longer afford to make. Hows that going to work out?

Pasadena currently has the high number of rental properties it does because it abides by reasonable State rental laws. Make the rules unreasonable, and people will stop building rental units in Pasadena. How are fewer rental units in Pasadena going to make prices go down?

It isnt.

Simple economics says the answer is to build more affordable units. To disincentivize future rental units will stop new construction. Thats what rent control does. What may help in the present will definitely hurt down the road. It will take a bad situation and make it worse.

Just like we cannot force gas stations to subsidize high gas prices, nor ask grocery stores to artificially keep prices low, we should not force mom and pop landlords to provide subsidized housing. Its not fair, and it is not the answer. We live in a country that does nottake from private individuals without just cause theres that 5th Amendment again. But this ordinance does just that.

If we want a more affordable city, the City needs to require more affordable units in all new construction it also needs to fast-track the building of affordable units on church property, explore creative reuse of existing buildings, make it easier to build affordable units in the City, and any number of things its not doing enough of right now.

Kicking the can down the road by kicking mom and pop landlords and their families is a lose-lose solution. In the long run, it will degrade our precious existing housing stock and hinder the building of new units.

Todd HayesPasadena resident and Realtor

Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.

Read more here:
Guest Opinion | Todd Hayes: Landlords Have Rights Too. Where Does the Taking of Rights Stop? Pasadena Now - Pasadena Now

So I have about 100,000 things I should be doing right now but my little wheels are turning and I figured Id share these thoughtshalf-baked though they arewith TCPAWorld before I forget.

The FTC just issued anNPRM requiring marketers to hold on to recordstons of records. All of the outbound calls theyve made. Copies of consent records (or the lack thereof). Basically anything a PROSECUTOR could ever want to use against a caller in a criminal case.

How is that supposed to make lawful marketers feel? Theyre basically being told to hold onto every record of their activities in case the government wants to come snooping into it one day.

I have to say I view this as a government agency basically just picking on a group of Americans who are politically unpopular right now just because it can. Just because a company engages in direct-to-consumer marketing doesnt mean theyre a criminal enterprise. And Im not sure they should be presumptively treated as one. Especially since I know a lot of these good folks who try their level best to comply with the law while also trying to make a living.

I dont like how this NPRM treats these good folks.I dont like it at all.

And I get it, wrongdoers should be prosecuted. Except that we all have the right to be secure in our possessions against unwarranted searches and seizures. And we have the right to not testify against ourselves. Andmost importantlywe have the rightnot to be treated as wrongdoers until we actually do something wrong.

If the government has probable cause to seize my records because I have committed a crime (or there is probable cause to believe that I have) well, my records are going to get seized. But it cant seize my recordsor, in my viewrequire me to seize my own records for their convenient production on a later datesimply because it thinks I might do something wrong in the future. Or simply because Im engaged in a profession thatotherpeople misuse.

Breaking this down a bit more, the case law is pretty clear that being compelled to produce business records that werevoluntarilycreated is not a fifth amendment issue. A business has no fifth amendment rights (for some reason) and a person cannot (again, for some reason) assert a privilege against business records even where they are in their possession. (Unless the act of production is, itself, testimonialwhich it sometimes can be.)

The limits on the protection against unwarranted searches and seizures are a bit less clear in this context, though. For instance, the warrantless obtaining of cell phone location data was too much for the Supreme Court tohandle back in the oldCarpentercase.The rationale was that if cell phone location data were wide open to government use the government would essentially have a 4 year look back on the whereabouts of every American. It could then pick and choose who to observe, whenever it saw fit to do so.

When I reflect on the FTCs new document retention protocol, this feels a lot likeCarpenterto me. You have the government essentially mandating a hold on every record of outbound callingcompletely lawful conduct, btw. That is unquestionable a form of seizure. The documents must be housed in ready condition for the government to come pick them up on demand. Presumably, the retrieval will require a warrantthat part isnt clear to me yetbut isnt thewarrantlessrequirement that documents remain seized (albeit in someone elses possession)itselfa violation of the fourth amendment?

And when you combine these concerns with the Fifth Amendment protections against self incriminationthat, again, barely exist in this contextit almost feels like the government is intentionally setting up a trap here. Likeeveryonewho engages in telemarketing (including lawful telemarketing) is now going to be subject to intensive/complete government review at any given moment. They areforcedto maintain records, only to beforcedto produce those records at the whim of a government official one day.

Now Im not saying the bad guys should get away. But usually, prosecutors should have to prove their casewithoutrequiring criminals to testify against themselves (including by forcing them to hold on to all of the evidence of their activities over a multi-year period of time so that they can hand it over one day.)

And the thing thatreallybothers me is how direct the FTC is in its approach here. It literally argues that the record retention rules are necessary to assist law enforcement efforts. Theres so subtlety. Its not like theres an argument that theres some other reason that the records should be maintained other than those that might trample constitutional rights. The FTC is literally directing marketers to hold onto their records for theexpress purposeof potentially having to testify against themselves (in the actual non-legal sense of those words) by producing the records to law enforcement down the line.

Essentially its just going to treat all marketers like criminals. And hey, if youre not doing anything wrong youve got nothing to worry about right?

The cry of an authoritarian regime.

I grant you I amonlya nationally-recognized scholar on theFirstAmendment, and not the Fourth or Fifth. So theres probably a bunch of subtlety here Im missing (or perhaps, ignoring because I dont like it.) But theres something to this argument.

Intuitively, the government cant force you to keep all records of your (lawful) conduct and then demand its production later on the off chance you did something wrong. Thats not a free society. Not even close.

At a minimum, the ruling should specify that government officials cannot take possession of records seized.. er, retained by businesses under the rules without a warrant.That has to be in there. It just has to be.

Anyway, I leave this to you TCPAWorld to run with. I cant take the lead on this one. Have too many other projects right now. Go fight the good fight. Thanks.

Excerpt from:
FTC Proposed Rule Could Require Telemarketer to Keep Records of Every Call - The National Law Review

As long as the muscle-flexing current Supreme Court majority purports to be bound by the constitutional language adopted in the first years of our Republic, honesty and consistency should compel them actually to look to that text.

Here is the Ninth Amendment (1791) in full: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The justices may not like the Ninth Amendment, but it directly demonstrates how deeply rooted and explicit was the Framers intention to include rights not specifically mentioned.

Roe v. Wade identified such a right, but that decision hardly stood alone. Justice Samuel Alitos leaked draft is disingenuous at best in its search for a particular word in the Constitution.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), for instance, Chief Justice John Marshall and a unanimous Court established the Courts power to declare government actions unconstitutional. This judicial review power cannot be found anywhere within the constitutional text. Indeed, the Marbury court also proclaimed again without any textual anchor that William Marbury had a vested individual right to his judicial commission.

Similarly, no constitutional text applies equal protection to the federal government. When the court unanimously held in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that state public schools segregated by race were unconstitutional, the justices applied that holding to a companion federal case, Bolling v. Sharpe (1954). It was unthinkable, Chief Justice Earl Warrens opinion held that this constitutional right might not apply to the District of Columbia schools. Perhaps Justice Alito would have to concede that the unanimous Bolling decision was not grounded in specific language in the Constitution.

Nor has creative judicial interpolation only been the bailiwick of liberal Justices. For example, the Eleventh Amendments text protected states from lawsuits brought against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. The Court simply ignored this textual limitation when it shielded railroads and the towns that sold bonds to attract them from suits brought by citizens of their home states. Indeed, state governments and state officials continue to enjoy a kind of defensive superpower shield; it is entirely judicial innovation that enables local police officers to defeat federal civil rights claims through the judge-made doctrine of qualified immunity.

In addition, there is growing judicial receptivity to claims by local property owners that state regulations take their property without compensation. Beginning in the 1890s, the court established a purported Fourteenth Amendment basis for such claims by invoking natural equity. This overcame a major textual problem: the early court had held that the Fifth Amendments textual protection applied only to federal takings, and not to those done by states. Nonetheless, after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment omitted the Fifth Amendment takings language entirely as it otherwise directly quoted the rest of the Fifth Amendments due process language. The Court itself later plugged this textual hole through the vagaries of what it termed due protection, and this takings doctrine addition continues to expand.

With luck, Justice Alito may turn out to be writing a concurrence. As a matter of constitutional text and history, his draft surely is unworthy of a majority vote. Recent New York Times columns by Linda Greenhouse and Emily Bazelon underscore how completely Alitos draft ignores the actual impact his decision would have on womens lives. Yet it also bizarrely assumes that, because of progress since 1973, a womans right to choose an abortion somehow is no longer salient.

Unfortunately, Alitos extremely selective brand of textualism makes it now seem realistic to fear that Loving v. Virginia (1967) which struck down state laws against interracial marriage could be on the chopping block; certainly it makes same-sex marriage seem shaky at best. In fact, one vainly searches the Constitution for words such as marriage, and privacy. Missing also are references to contraception or parental authority. Nor is there any mention of campaign funding, for that matter.

The current courts blatant manipulation of its shadow docket indicates no principled limits regarding which precedents will fall away. But the Constitutions structure and the longstanding recognition of implicit constitutional rights should matter much more than any narrow word search seeking a desired result. There is great wisdom in the idea that the past has a vote, but it does not have a veto.

Aviam Soiferserved 17 years as dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii, after five years as dean of the Boston College Law School.He has been teaching and writing about constitutional law and legal history for over 40 years, often focusing on the post-Civil War period.

See the article here:
The Supreme Courts text mess - The Hill

Former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr is in talks to cooperate with the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to an individual close to Barr.

Committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson told "Face the Nation" in January that the select committee "had conversations with the former attorney general already," and an individual close to the Barr confirmed the panel contacted him for what was described as an informal conversation to see whether he had information related to the Capitol attack or the actions of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.

When asked about a draft executive orderobtained by Politicothat was given to former President Donald Trump directing the Defense Department to seize voting machines after he lost the 2020 election, Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, said, "we've had conversations with the former attorney general already. We have talked to Department of Defense individuals."

At that time, Barr said he did not have any visibility into the events of January or Clarke's work and did not feel he had much information that could be useful to the select committee. Barr resigned from his post as attorney general in December 2020 and ended his tenure at the department on December 23.

Clark, a key figure in raising doubts about the integrity of the election with Trump, attempted to use Justice Department resources to delay certification of the 2020 election results, according to a report from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Clark was in contact with Mr. Trump in the days leading up to January 6, according to the Senate Judiciary committee's report.

The select committee issued a subpoena for his testimony in October. The committee had moved to hold Clark in contempt late last year when he failed to appear but granted him a reprieve after he indicated he would appear for a deposition and invoke the Fifth Amendment.

While Barr was considered a defender of Trump while he led the Justice Department, their relationship soured in the wake of the 2020 presidential election after Barr told the Associated Press that federal investigators had not found evidence of widespread voter fraud, as Trump claimed.

A source familiar with the situation confirmed to CBS News in October that former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen sat for an interview with the committee. It lasted around 8 hours.

The committee is winding down its investigations ahead of planned public hearings, set to start on June 9. Thompson said earlier this week that he didn't expect the committee would call Trump as a witness.

Thompson said earlier this week the first hearing will "more or less" show what the committee has learned over the past year.

The House select committee was created last year by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to investigate the January 6 attack, when thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol as Congress counted the electoral votes, a largely ceremonial final step affirming Mr. Biden's victory. Lawmakers were sent fleeing amid the riot, which led to the deaths of five people and the arrests of hundreds more. Trump, who encouraged his supporters to "walk down" to the Capitol during the rally at the Ellipse before the electoral vote count, was impeached by the House one week later for inciting the riot but was later acquitted by the Senate.

The committee has issued dozens of subpoenas, including ones to Trump's allies, former White House officials, campaign aides and individuals involved in the planning of the rally outside the White House before the Capitol building came under siege. Two top Trump allies, Steve Bannon and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, have been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas, and the Justice Department has charged Bannon. Both said they are following instructions from Trump, who has claimed executive privilege.

Rebecca Kaplan, Zak Hudak and Ellis Kim contributed to this report.

Read more here:
Trump Attorney General Bill Barr in talks to cooperate with January 6 committee, source says - CBS News